Overview of the test protocols.

ObjectiveThis study aimed to compare the stability and mechanical properties of the double chevron-cut (DCC) and biplanar (BP) distal femoral osteotomy (DFO) techniques, along with analyzing their respective contact surface areas.MethodsBiomechanical testing was performed using sawbone and 3D modeling techniques to assess axial and torsional stability, torsional stiffness, and maximum torque of both osteotomy configurations. Additionally, 3D models of the sawbone femur were created to calculate and compare the contact surface area of the DCC, BP, and conventional single-plane DFO techniques.ResultsAxial stiffness and maximum strength did not significantly differ between the two osteotomy techniques. However, in terms of torsional properties, the DCC technique exhibited superior torsional stiffness compared to the BP group (27 ± 7.7 Nm/° vs. 4.5 ± 1.5 Nm/°, p = 0.008). Although the difference in maximum torque did not reach statistical significance (63 ± 10.6 vs. 56 ± 12.1, p = 0.87), it is noteworthy that the DCC group sawbone model exhibited fracture in the shaft region instead of at the osteotomy site. Therefore, the actual maximum torque of the DCC construct may not be accurately reflected by the numerical values obtained in this study. The contact surface area analysis revealed that the BP configuration had the largest contact surface area, 111% larger than that of the single-plane configuration. but 60% of it relied on the less reliable axial cut. Conversely, the DCC osteotomy offered a 31% larger contact surface area than the single-plane configuration, with both surfaces being weight-bearing.ConclusionThe DCC osteotomy exhibited superior mechanical stability, showing improved rotational stiffness and maximum torque when compared to the BP osteotomy. Although the BP osteotomy resulted in a larger contact surface area than the DCC osteotomy, both were larger than the conventional single-plane configuration. In clinical practice, both the DCC and BP techniques should be evaluated based on patient-specific characteristics and surgical goals.

研究目的
本研究旨在比较双V形截骨术（double chevron-cut, DCC）与双平面截骨术（biplanar, BP）两种股骨远端截骨术（distal femoral osteotomy, DFO）的稳定性与力学性能，并分析二者各自的接触表面积。

研究方法
本研究采用人工合成骨（sawbone）与三维建模技术，对两种截骨方式的轴向稳定性、扭转稳定性、扭转刚度及最大扭矩开展生物力学测试评估。此外，本研究构建了人工合成股骨的三维模型，用于计算并比较双V形截骨术、双平面截骨术与传统单平面股骨远端截骨术的接触表面积。

研究结果
两种截骨术式的轴向刚度与最大强度无显著差异。但在扭转性能方面，双V形截骨术组的扭转刚度显著优于双平面截骨术组（27±7.7 N·m/° vs. 4.5±1.5 N·m/°，p=0.008）。尽管两组最大扭矩的差异未达到统计学显著性（63±10.6 vs. 56±12.1，p=0.87），但值得注意的是，双V形截骨术组的人工合成骨模型发生了股骨干区域骨折，而非截骨部位断裂，因此本研究测得的数值可能无法准确反映双V形截骨构造的实际最大扭矩。接触表面积分析结果显示，双平面截骨方式的接触面积最大，较单平面截骨方式大111%，但其中60%的接触面积来自可靠性较低的轴向截骨面。与之相反，双V形截骨术的接触面积较单平面截骨方式大31%，且两个截骨面均为承重面。

研究结论
双V形截骨术表现出更优的机械稳定性，相较于双平面截骨术，其扭转刚度与最大扭矩均有所提升。尽管双平面截骨术的接触表面积大于双V形截骨术，但二者均大于传统单平面截骨术。临床实践中，双V形截骨术与双平面截骨术两种术式均需结合患者个体特征与手术目标进行评估选择。